Colleen LaRose, an American woman known as Jihad Jane, is on the cover of every Swedish tabloid today. She is one of the eight people who allegedly planned to kill Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks for his drawings of the Prophet Muhammad.

More here.

Update: Here are a few of the many press articles on Jihad Jane and Lars Vilks:

• Los Angles Times
• New York Times
• The Times
• The Guardian
• Jerusalem Post
• Ynetnews

See Vilks’s controversial drawings here.

Repealing DADT [Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] isn’t about gays serving. They already serve. Repealing DADT is about gays telling. It’s about achieving endorsement of homosexuality, and gay activist agenda items, through both military regulation and military culture.

Yes, wouldn’t it be terrifying if gay soldier stopped pretending that their boyfriends back home are girlfriends? What would this truth-telling do to the army? Truth is scary.

This is really stupid. It’s better for the army as a whole if soldiers are allowed to speak the truth without having to fear being kicked out.

Meanwhile, Palestinian activists use the American free-speech legislation to humiliate Israel. That is fine by me. Stamp on the Israeli flag all you want.

The irony is that these activists demonstrate support of Hamas, an organization that does not recognize free speech or any other civil liberty.

Unlike the friends of Hamas, I support free speech for everyone. Mocking flags should not be allowed only for the politically wicked.

In December, I wrote an article on male circumcision for MalmöModeraten, a publication for the members of the Malmö chapter of the Moderate Party. In the article, I defended the freedom of religion and argued that Jews and Muslims must be allowed to perform one of the most fundamental rituals of Judaism and Islam. If the government prohibit them from doing so, it would violate a fundamental civil right.

In my article, I gave a short explanation of the various cultural background and scriptural justification for male circumcision; for example that Abraham circumcised his older son Ishmael when the boy was thirteen years old and his younger son Isaac on the boy’s eighth day.

Yesterday I received the latest issue of MalmöModeraten; I was chocked by a response that completely distorts everything I wrote. In a reply to me, local politician Elisabeth Elgh writes, “Your arguments for circumcision of small boys is based on biblical stories about Abraham’s sons where you claim that one can find that a ban on circumcision would be a violation of the freedom of religion.” Later she asks rhetorically if there are any other body parts that parents in name of religion could pay to have removed from their children. She finishes her article by stating that freedom of religion is about being able to choose religion.

It is obvious that Ms Elgh has no interest in a serious discussion. She not only fail to understand my article, she did not even read my name right.

In my article I wrote that a ban on circumcision would be to Jews and Muslims what a ban on baptism would be to Christians. A ban on any of these rituals would hit at the core of these religious cultures. It would be impossible to be a practising Jew if circumcision of boys was criminalized. Muslims might be able to adjust if a ban was restricted for younger boys.

Ms Elgh is wrong about freedom of religion. Article nine of the European Convention on Human Rights states that the every European Union citizen is free to manifest his or her religion in worship, teaching, practice, and observance. This convention was included in Sweden’s national constitution when the country became member of the EU in 1995.

My Swedish readers can compare my original article to Ms Elgh’s reply, which is pictured above. I have not yet decided if I will write a second article for the next issue of MalmöModeraten.

Update: Here’s the exact reading of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Here’s the exact reading of Article 10 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which is included in the Lisbon Treaty and bounding law for all EU member states since December 2009:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

There are now two European human-rights declarations that protect religious minorities’ right to practice and observe their religions.

OMG, it’s a tie!